Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>>>>>>I have the following problem. I want to write a <map:match
>>>>>>pattern="**.html"> matcher in the top-level sitemap, and have it
>>>>>>invoked for most of the HTML page generation. However I'd like this
>>>>>>rule to be overwritten in sub-sitemaps, e.g. if a sub-sitemap
>>>>>>implements a rule with a similar pattern, this rule should take
>>>>>>precendence. This would be very similar to the precedence rule in
>>>>>>XSLT, allowing developers to define catch-all rules, while still
>>>>>>permitting the rule to be rewritten.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do we have something like this which can implement this behavior?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What if we could "come back" from a <map:mount> to the parent sitemap
>>>>
>
>>>>>if no pattern matched in the subsitemap ?
>>>>
>>>>I think this will do it. Should we vote for extending the semantics of
>>>><map:mount> this way?
>>>>
>>>>I'm +1.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Currently I'm -0 but with a tendency to -1.
>>>
>>>Why? I see these reasons:
>>>1) This is an incompatible change - currently if nothing matches in the
>>> subsitemap, the error handler is invoked and people rely on this, so
>>> this will break many installations.
>>>2) I think it is more natural if a sub sitemap is invoked that it is
>>> the sole responsibility of this sub sitemap to process the request.
>>>3) Before you consider implementing this simple sounding change, have a
>>> look at all the component manager and source handling stuff which
>>> takes place when a sub sitemap is invoked - it's very difficult
>>> to implement your wantet behaviour without breaking everything.
>>
>>Without considering the technical issues, I still agree with Carsten
>
> because of
>
>>point 1 and 2.
>>
>>Consider it a -1
>
>
> As was previously pointed out (No Pun Intended), point 1) is wrong. The
> change doe _not_ have to be incompatible. The new behavior can be added in
> such a way that it is configurable via a new optional attribute on the
> sub-sitemap specification. Only if the new parameter is explicitly
> specified would you get the new behavior. Existing sitemaps would continue
> to function exactly as they do now.
>
> If you think that point 2) is valid, let me ask you; do you ever use
> inheritance in Java? Do you ever use inheritance where you only want to
> override part of the behavior of the super class but otherwise let the rest
> of the processing continue on as normal?
Usually I never do this, I use composition, not inheritance.
I have never found the need to inherit from a non-abstract class yet, so
you can understand why I don't see the need.
Invert the selection logic, put it in the parent, not the child.
> Why shouldn't you be able to do
> the same thing with sitemaps?
Why should you? (see below)
> I can think of many use cases where I might
> want to parcel out handling of a portion of a site to some other group, but
> still continue processing a request if the other groups sitemap did not
> handle it.
Please share them with us.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
